The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: email@example.com (larry fine)
Subject: Re: IBM chip fab will use Linux
Date: 3 Sep 2002 10:44:08 -0700
References: <3D6E8E0E.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3D6FDA8F.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Sep 2002 17:44:09 GMT
I don't know...people like to slam MS nowadays just to look cool.
Truth is, I've used NT for many years without any problems, and I've
seen plenty of dumb things from Linux. In fact, at work, I got so frustrated
with how obfuscated linux is, I switched to Win2000 and ran a server for
the last year straight without any problems. Meanwhile, our Linux firewall would
always lock up after the power outage because Yellow pages and home dir
serving would become deadlocked due to one needing the other to start. We'd
come in the morning and no one can log in. Eventually, someone had to write
a script to insert artificial delays and retries.
Point is, if you use Windows smart and don't program stupid bugs into your
program that can potentially crash it, it's fine.
Personally, I'm surprised IBM didn't just write an embedded bare bones OS
for what they need. All other systems like Linux or MS waste huge amounts
of memory on system overhead, and slow everything down significantly.
"Dr Peter" wrote in message news:...
> Many of microflops own software titles are shoddily written.. who are you
> kidding ???
> The difference is, that open software often gets fixed BEFORE the deaf giant
> even stirs...
> I BTW, like many others here are forced to use windoze just because it's
> popular.... enough bitching...
> I am sure IBM chose the system because of techinical and stability issues..
> I have written software
> for instruments for use in IBM's fabs.. and their major concern was
> always... reliability... windoze does
> not and will never satisfy that criteria..
> "larry fine" wrote in message
> > I don't know how the OS even matters at the fab, where all you
> > need is a fast network and good control software. As far as I can
> > tell, Linux is free and that's its only advantage, and its major flaw.
> > So much of the free software out there is shoddily written, that sifting
> > through all of it is a major pain. Plus there's absolutely no formal
> > tech support or information resource. Linux is a patchwork of code, and
> > is quite difficult to setup and run. The kernel may be stable, but so are
> > other OS's like IBM's own *X variants.
> > "Mike" wrote in message
> > > "Christopher R. Carlen" wrote in message
> > > news:3D6FDA8F.email@example.com...
> > >
> > > > The article itself, which was not really intended to talk about Linux
> > > > vs. Windows agreeably didn't provide any evidence.
> > > >
> > > > However, this article has been discussed quite a bit on other forums,
> > > > where the sentiment appeared to be two-fold:
> > >
> > > A good engineer would be uninterested in opinions of people who have
> made up
> > > the evidence.
> > >
> > > This is a multi-billion dollar fab. You can bet that the OS cost was not
> > > significant consideration.
> > >
> > > You have no evidence that IBM wrote the software or that they optimized
> > > The conclusion that software performance and reliability is primarily
> > > attributable to the OS is unsupported.
> > >
> > > Software vendors are not software developers, and generally have no
> > > particular expertise writing or optimizing software. Imagine how much
> > > Microsoft software Dell sells. I doubt that qualifies them to write fab
> > > control software.
> > >
> > > As your other Linux posts have made clear, Linux is your religion.
> > > the church, large software purchases are complex decisions involving
> > > considerations besides the OS. There's no reason to think IBM's decision
> > > any different, regardless of the PR.
> > >
> > > -- Mike --
> > >
> > >
> > > > 1. IBM was interested in building a chip-fab, and you can be darned
> > > > sure that the choice of OS platform would have been seen as a cost
> > > > more than a PR and marketing issue. So they would have attempted to
> > > > optimize both the Windows and Linux test beds, to see which *really*
> > > > performed better, because the answer would bear very much on the long
> > > > term total cost of operating the whole fab. Thus, if a performance
> > > > difference appeared, particularly a glaring one, this should be
> > > > attributable primarily to the OS. The result of Windows choking after
> > > > week or so compared to months and months of Linux humming along
> > > > was also not inconsistent with the experience of server administrators
> > > > trying to use Linux vs. Windows for mission critical applications.
> > > >
> > > > 2. IBM is one of the largest vendors of Microsoft software. Thus,
> > > > should be very experienced in its use. They probably sincerely
> > > > optimized their application on Windows, and the results are fair and
> > > square.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup